The hearing that Judge Kavanaugh had to go through with Dr. Ford’s allegations was a truly dark moment in our nation’s history. The left has shown they will stop at nothing for power, even if it means destroying a person’s reputation with uncorroborated allegations. Instead of going into the graphic details of what occurred, this post will highlight what really has motivated the left to act in such a way against an eminently qualified jurist in Judge Kavanaugh. This hearing was simply part of a larger plan to resist the Constitution at all costs. The left realizes that this document is what stands in between them and unlimited and unregulated power to fundamentally change American society for the worse.

Constitutionalism jurisprudence does not adhere to public sentiment and the changing attitudes of society, rather it adheres first and foremost to the Constitution itself. While a progressive jurist such as Sonia Sotomayor will be persuaded considerably by the needs of society and tend to embrace a legislative role for the Court, one in the Clarence Thomas mold will not, but rather concentrate their jurisprudential philosophy on the text of the Constitution. There lies the heart of the progressive dilemma. Notable influential cases on society such as Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Obergefell v. Hodges all had the common elements of replacing the valid voice of the people that had been applied through their legislatures while assessing the creation of new rights with the voice of the Supreme Court. These cases are just some examples of invalid judicial interference in democracy. The Constitution as properly applied did not support these outcomes yet they occurred because the Court at those moments was too willing to buckle under pressure from outside forces rather than focus on the Constitution itself. Focusing on the Constitution itself includes what is provided within it and what it does not have in it. Part of the duty of a judge is to not invent rights by stretching and vaguely interpreting terms to just be aligned with supposed proper societal sentiment. This is a disservice to the nation and rule of law and is what the radical left thrives on.

The left fears that another Constitutionalist on the Court will give it the 5-4 majority it needs to return the Court back to Constitutionalism and text driven strict interpretation to derail the legislative influence of the Supreme Court. Most importantly judges in the Kavanaugh mold believe in judicial restraint and will be reluctant to be a rubber stamp for the supposed changing attitudes of society that should be addressed in the legislature. The left realizes, however, that it does not often have the majority of the people united behind them in their initiatives to breed success at the legislative level. That is why they have turned to the Supreme Court time and time again to rescues these initiatives. See the invented doctrine of substantive due process that has bloody origins from the Dred Scott case- when slaves were viewed as property and not people.

The left also recognizes that a future democrat’s presidency will be significantly constrained when dealing with a deeply Constitutionalist court. It is no coincidence that Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas and now Judge Kavanaugh were so strongly opposed. Judge Kavanaugh has been through the most difficult of these processes with the relentless attacks on his entire life and his family by a radical leftist agenda. It no longer is confined to his body of legal work, but as he had said in his own words they have carried out a “search and destroy” mission. Find the Constitutionalist and destroy him or her so they cannot be in a position to positively influence Constitutional interpretation. The left fears that Judge Kavanaugh will adhere to the Constitutionalist method much more than his former boss, Justice Anthony Kennedy and as an intellectual legal heavyweight this poses a direct challenge to their power trip.

The left has succeeded in pushing their radical agenda on society through the Supreme Court and does not want it to be stopped. They recognize Judge Kavanaugh as a danger for being too learned, too Constitutionalist. He may find himself in the majority of cases in scaling back the administrative state. He may be ruling favorably in cases that consider the strength of the free exercise clause. Finally, and most threatening to the left he may one day be a deciding vote in scaling back abortion rights significantly if not a full overturn as a matter of Constitutional law.

The left as represented by Cory Booker, Kamela Harris and other radicals cannot be bound by the text of the Constitution, it limits their influence and is the only check on their power. Deep down they fear the voice of the people and want to take that voice away by purposefully twisting the text of the Constitution and dismissing the proper role of the judiciary to reach an unjust end.

Tearing down Judge Kavanaugh also symbolizes tearing down the Constitution. When being subjected to their antics on the news waves in the coming weeks and years, have this in the back of your mind. The very people they are tearing down, are the very ones with a record of being a guardian to the Constitution. This issue is bigger than Brett Kavanaugh, it encompasses the very governing structure of our society. Publius has warned- the question posed to you is: will you be complicit in this destruction or will you take steps to stop it? 

Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court hearings are set to begin tomorrow. The goal is to have him seated by the beginning of the Supreme Court’s fall term in October. With the Republican majority in the senate, he will likely have the votes to be seated in that timeframe, however, that does not mean this hearing will be an easy one for the nation to watch or be consistent with the vision of the framers.

Since the bloody nomination days of Robert Bork, (see my law review commentary publication here on Bork) the Supreme Court hearing process has become more of a theatrical display of ways to score cheap political points with respective party bases during times of political turmoil. Instead of vying to ask tough questions on the nominee rooted in philosophy and adherence to the Constitution it has instead become a competition as to which senator will sensationalize the most in an attempt to embarrass the nominee. The leftist senators since the days of Ted Kennedy have insulted the intelligence of the American people and the process by asking inappropriate questions, mostly coming from the same guidebook of controversial social policy or in Clarence Thomas’ situation, lies about his career and personal life to embarrass him in front of the nation. In describing his experience, Justice Thomas was correct in boldly describing it as a “high-tech lynching.”

These reactions come out of a sense of fear that the unconstitutionalist senators have that constitutionalist judicial nominees are a threat to their agenda.  Nominees like Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh cannot be bought and are not willing to act as legislators or rubber stamp for an agenda. Their respective philosophies while containing slight nuances and differences in certain contexts, are generally united by originalism, textualism and judicial restraint.  Those buzz words have incited fear in the minds of the unconstitutionalists such as Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, Al Franken, Cory Booker, then-senator Barack Obama and scores of others. These words reflect that the priority of these nominees is to not promulgate social policy from the bench to the detriment of the Constitution like other judges are more than willing to do such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor. Rather, they are bound by the structure and text of the Constitution. In the end, the Constitution is what they answer to- not to the movements in society and so called “evolving times”.

During the hearings you will undoubtedly hear questions such as, “how you would rule in Roe v. Wade” or in Gorsuch’s case “you ruled for a trucking company, you must be against the little guy”. In the worst example, Ted Kennedy promoted lies with regards to the Bork nomination, “In Robert Bork’s America- women would be forced into back alley abortions and African-Americans separated at lunch counters.” These are just a few truly disgraceful examples of how low the unconstitutionalists and left will go to try and sink a nominee. Americans should be ashamed of this and demand accountability for this inappropriate and unprofessional behavior. One should not be painting a broad brush on a nominee based on a decision they rendered or force them to answer for a decision they took no part in such as Roe. They must, however, answer questions based on their philosophy and why they adhere it. At that point, reasonable conclusions can be drawn on deciding to vote for or against a nominee.

Do not be fooled and buy into the drama and cheap political pandering- take the nominee based on their qualifications and adherence to the Constitution. That is the chief litmus test. Do your own independent research on articles they have written or read cases they wrote decisions and dissents in. You will not be able to discern the true nature of a nominee based on lies and propaganda on the senate record during the hearings. By conducting your own research, you will formulate your own opinion while at the same time growing in intellect, no matter the outcome you reach.

As so eloquently stated by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, judges are to not be viewed as legislators and the Supreme Court should not be viewed as a legislative body for producing laws and crafting social policy.

In Federalist 47, Madison quoted Montesquieu and wrote, “were the power of judging joined with the legislator, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control, for the judge would then be the legislator.”

In Federalist 78, Hamilton, wrote when discussing the role of the judiciary, “it may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment.”

We as a nation must reflect on the reality currently faced with these hearings and look to return them to a decorum of fair evaluation in assessing the future guardians of the Constitution. This process has become reduced to nothing more than a campaign for the next legislator to stamp agendas. We can begin by stopping the dark money ads that promote lies about nominees and pressure members of the senate to vote in a certain direction. This is not a political campaign and should not be treated as such. Closed door meetings with nominees should not be on the front page of newspapers the next day, providing ripe material for the media to distort.

While this process may not entirely escape politics in the sense that a democratically elected president has the power to appoint Supreme Court justices and this is a viable ground for voters to decide on election day; it does not mean that once that power is exercised it should result in partisan bickering. The political influence should end once the appointment is made and from that point after, it is a question of qualifications with an assessment of judicial philosophy.

It is shameful that we have drifted so far from the vision articulated by Federalist Papers and have allowed self-interest and personal gain be put before respect for the Constitution and process. Be attentive, however, to these hearings and be mindful of the distortion machine that will be persistent, but respond with holding the unconstitutionalists accountable for their actions before the next Supreme Court vacancy.